Use ALSA 1.x API instead of 0.9 #11

Despite the comment in ConfigureChecks.cmake, we were requesting the 0.9 compatibility version of some APIs with the ALSA_PCM_OLD_SW_PARAMS_API and ALSA_PCM_OLD_HW_PARAMS_API macros.

ALSA implements the compatibility versions of these APIs using symbol versioning, which musl (at least) does not support. The code compiled and linked, but at runtime would call the 1.x version of the API instead of the 0.9 version the code expected.

The 1.x versions of these APIs were introduced in 2002.

Fixes #5

Great @koorogi, thanks for the PR.

@Francois in relation to the arts problem reported in TDE/tde#128, could you test the code in this PR and see how it goes with this PR?

@koorogi in the meantime, could you rebase the PR on top of origin/master since I have merged PR #10?

Test in debian looks good. Waiting for the test on RPM :-)

@koorogi in the meantime, could you rebase the PR on top of origin/master since I have merged PR #10?

Done

Great @koorogi, thanks for the PR.

@Francois in relation to the arts problem reported in TDE/tde#128, could you test the code in this PR and see how it goes with this PR?

Hello @MicheleC , I've just tested in Fedora 37 virtual machine.
Before the patch, configuring arts for alsa output makes it crash instantly.
After the patch, arts starts normally and sound is outputted as expected (via alsa/pulseaudio redirection).

Hello @MicheleC , I've just tested in Fedora 37 virtual machine.
Before the patch, configuring arts for alsa output makes it crash instantly.
After the patch, arts starts normally and sound is outputted as expected (via alsa/pulseaudio redirection).

Thanks for testing @Francois, good to hear arts works fine with the patch.

@koorogi thanks for the patch, great to have a new contributor!! 🙂

Looks good and test on debian/fedora works fine.

@koorogi could you squash the 3 commits into one before I merge?

I recommend not to make squash, because there are much better to see changes for API 1.x, when it is in a separate commit and renaming the file also in a separate commit. When it is together, it is much less visible, what are real changes.

I recommend not to make squash, because there are much better to see changes for API 1.x, when it is in a separate commit and renaming the file also in a separate commit. When it is together, it is much less visible, what are real changes.

Ok, in such case I will merge as is (3 commits).

I recommend not to make squash, because there are much better to see changes for API 1.x, when it is in a separate commit and renaming the file also in a separate commit. When it is together, it is much less visible, what are real changes.

Looks like you posted this at almost the same time I pushed the squashed commit. I do agree, the unsquashed version is much easier to read, so I've gone and re-pushed that again.

Merged and backported. Thanks @koorogi!

Use ALSA 1.x API instead of 0.9 #11

Εξεταστές